Skip to main content
Glama

Interactive Issue Create

gitlab_interactive_issue_create

Create a GitLab issue via interactive prompts: enter title, optional description, labels, and confidentiality, then confirm before API call. Cancel any step to abort without creating.

Instructions

Create a GitLab issue through step-by-step prompts, with explicit confirmation before calling the GitLab API. Cancellation at any prompt aborts without creating the issue.

After invocation, the tool elicits in order:

  • title (string, required) — issue title.

  • description (string, optional, multi-line, Markdown) — leave empty to skip.

  • labels (string, optional) — comma-separated; trimmed and deduped server-side.

  • confidential (boolean, optional) — yes/no confirmation; defaults to public when declined.

  • confirm (boolean, required) — final yes/no review of the assembled summary.

When to use: human-in-the-loop issue creation. NOT for: scripted/programmatic creation — use gitlab_issue (action='create') with all fields pre-supplied.

Requires the MCP client to support the elicitation capability. If unsupported, returns a structured error naming gitlab_issue (action='create') as the alternative.

Returns: JSON with the created issue (id, issue_iid, web_url, title, state).

See also: gitlab_issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path where the issue will be created

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
next_stepsNo
idYes
issue_iidYes
titleYes
descriptionYes
stateYes
labelsYes
assigneesYes
milestoneYes
authorYes
closed_byNo
web_urlYes
created_atYes
updated_atYes
closed_atYes
due_dateYes
confidentialYes
discussion_lockedYes
project_idYes
weightNo
issue_typeNo
health_statusNo
referencesNo
merge_request_countNo
task_completion_countNo
task_completion_totalNo
user_notes_countNo
upvotesNo
downvotesNo
subscribedYes
time_estimateNo
total_time_spentNo
moved_to_idNo
epic_issue_idNo
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses the interactive elicitation process, the confirmation step, clean abort on cancellation, and the fallback error. This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by detailing the exact interaction flow and client dependency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear intro, a bullet list of prompts, usage guidance, and a return type section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (interactive elicitation) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description is complete. It covers the interactive process, fallback, return format, and sibling reference, leaving no critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has one parameter (project_id) with 100% description coverage, and the description adds no further meaning to it. However, the description compensates by documenting the elicited parameters (title, description, etc.) that are not in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool creates a GitLab issue via interactive step-by-step prompts, explicitly distinguishing it from the scripted sibling gitlab_issue (action='create'). The verb 'Create' and resource 'GitLab issue' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions: 'human-in-the-loop issue creation' vs. 'scripted/programmatic creation' with a named alternative. Also explains the requirement for MCP client elicitation support and the fallback behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jmrplens/gitlab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server